New Treatments for Psychological/Brain Disfunction

[nature]

Perhaps that is why the cats like to play with mice before they eat them? Perhaps that game creates some kind of beneficial substances in mouse body? So the cat gets the benefits without suffering herself?

Most of cats don't eat the mouse after playing with it. It plays with it, in the same way it plays with another moving object. When cats eat the mouse, it's in the same way it would eat whatever meat.
Saying that it's because of so-called appetizing substances (it reminds about the adrenochrome stuff) is an hypothesis only, which questions about the scientist's methods. To believe that making the animal suffer in order to extract an appetizing flesh for humans is STS extremism. This is unacceptable for humans , unless you are a satanist (cf their rituals). We are humans, there are things we must not accept, whatever "benefits" are claimed, there are lines we must not cross.

That Cs' quote is not about making another being suffer. It's about oneself searching for solutions to get out of a difficulty, when you're in a suffering situation.

It seems that it's true that a lot of interesting neuro-chemicals are produced when we suffer, either through pain, stress, sleep deprivation or other ways. Now, you cannot expect to get benefits just from suffering alone, otherwise people would gladly welcome their suffering. You do need a little bit of knowledge about it to potentially reap the benefits. I think that these two articles are particularly interesting on that subject:

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12907

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304395911005033

The first paper is about anti-inflammation substances produced by the intestine cells, in order to protect the instestine from pro-inflammatory products. The second one is about the synthesis of a neurosteroid that has an analgesic/ antihyperalgesic effects in acute and persistent pain. Studies like that are usual and frequent in publications since many decades. It's the way pharma markets and sells various antlagic (anti-pain) medicaments. It's not about the acceptance of suffering, caused by someone else or performed on someone. It's about searching for solutions to overcome it, here in these papers, to find antalgics. Suffering is an unvoluntary thing (unless one is a masochist), coming from external involuntary factors (cold, bone fracture, ilness, wars, etc)

Even the Charles Schnabel was harvesting his wheatgrass at 4 AM, possibly during the cold stress that plants were experiencing.

Cold stress on plants are provoked here by natural variations, not purposely caused.

That could possibly also explain the variations of cabbage healing effects from the same land parcel that Garnett Cheney talked about. Perhaps the variations in air temperature during the harvesting made the difference?

Or other factors. Scientists sometimes miss other possible hypothesis. If you look at the big picture in science and medicine, you'll see lots of prejudice and misleading conclusions. Meanstream scientific mand medical papers are, alas, full of that. Most of papers conclude with the words "possibly ", "potentialy", because authors feel (sometimes unconsciuosly) that they miss something. You must take with a grain of salt what you read in this literrature.

 

[Persej]

The video is in Spanish, but you can turn on the automatic subtitles:

Inflammation is a common feature in many diseases. In this webinar, we will explore, with renowned experts in their field, the latest research on the processes involved in inflammation resolution and the use of proresolvins in inflammatory pathologies.

In this webinar you will learn:

1 - Inflammation resolution as a therapeutic strategy in inflammatory processes
2 - Mechanisms governing the resolution of inflammatory processes
3 - Preclinical and clinical experience with proresolvins in inflammatory pathologies
4 - Inflammation proresolution in animal health

 

[Persej]

Yes, it sounds very STS-ish. I cannot fathom a time when I would want an animal to suffer before killing it so I can get some little extra "something" from eating it.

I can, if this could cure some human disease.

To believe that making the animal suffer in order to extract an appetizing flesh for humans is STS extremism. This is unacceptable for humans , unless you are a satanist (cf their rituals). We are humans, there are things we must not accept, whatever "benefits" are claimed, there are lines we must not cross.

I don't see why it would be not acceptable for us to eat the animal that has suffered in some way before death. Other predatory animals do it all the time.

That Cs' quote is not about making another being suffer. It's about oneself searching for solutions to get out of a difficulty, when you're in a suffering situation.

Yes, but this could be one such solution.

The first paper is about anti-inflammation substances produced by the intestine cells, in order to protect the instestine from pro-inflammatory products. The second one is about the synthesis of a neurosteroid that has an analgesic/ antihyperalgesic effects in acute and persistent pain. Studies like that are usual and frequent in publications since many decades. It's the way pharma markets and sells various antlagic (anti-pain) medicaments. It's not about the acceptance of suffering, caused by someone else or performed on someone. It's about searching for solutions to overcome it, here in these papers, to find antalgics. Suffering is an unvoluntary thing (unless one is a masochist), coming from external involuntary factors (cold, bone fracture, ilness, wars, etc)

Yes, that is a common view on suffering. What I am suggesting is that perhaps we can view the suffering from another point of view which could be more beneficial for us. Suffering as a voluntary thing.

Cold stress on plants are provoked here by natural variations, not purposely caused.

Makes no difference in the end. You can either stress the plants or animals yourself or let the nature stress them herself, and you harvest/kill them at the right moment.

Or other factors. Scientists sometimes miss other possible hypothesis. If you look at the big picture in science and medicine, you'll see lots of prejudice and misleading conclusions. Meanstream scientific mand medical papers are, alas, full of that. Most of papers conclude with the words "possibly ", "potentialy", because authors feel (sometimes unconsciuosly) that they miss something. You must take with a grain of salt what you read in this literrature.

Yes, this is still just a theory. But I think that it has some validity.

 

[Nienna]

I can, if this could cure some human disease.

That's your choice, but it doesn't negate the fact that making another creature suffer for another's benefit is not STS and for me is a line I will not cross.

I don't see why it would be not acceptable for us to eat the animal that has suffered in some way before death. Other predatory animals do it all the time.

We are trying to raise our FRV above that of an animal. Yes? Saying that animals do it so why not us is saying we are no better than animals.

Yes, that is a common view on suffering. What I am suggesting is that perhaps we can view the suffering from another point of view which could be more beneficial for us. Suffering as a voluntary thing.

Very STS-ish

Makes no difference in the end. You can either stress the plants or animals yourself or let the nature stress them herself, and you harvest/kill them at the right moment.

I think for the person who is making animals/whatever suffer for their benefit it makes all the difference in the world for their soul. But that's just me.

 

[SasaM]

But that's just me.

Well, not only you.

The 'theory' proposed seems a lot like normalization and acceptance of torture.
Applying the 'theory' to humans, highly doubt that any of us would "voluntarily" choose to suffer for the benefits of the overlords and their physical wellbeing.
Only psychos, IMO, and maybe not even (all of) them, would approve and advocate for the things the C's said in early sessions that Consortium and overlords have been doing to humans and our children.

So, that's a big and clear NO for that 'theory' from my side also.

 

[3DStudent]

The 'theory' proposed seems a lot like normalization and acceptance of torture.

And there was this from Session 13 September 2009:

A: Acceptance of torture is the "mark of the beast."

 

[palestine]

Just checked the last messages and went back up to this area - if I may say something..

I know it sounds brutal, but perhaps some kind of suffering at the ends of animals life, or even after life, as described by Vladimir Filatov, would make their meat or fat more beneficial for us?

@Persej there may exist, indeed, technical benefits in making animals suffer before death. Those would be quantifiable benefits, and I believe limited to specific benefits (or simply, specific benefits).

Making animals suffer before killing them (in order to get those added benefits - if there are) - constitute an "action" (instead of simply "killing", one adds up an action). Like any action, it meets a sort of cosmic appreciation of "okay" "not okay". Seems to me it's a nogo, despite ONE possible benefit. Perhaps, a matter of balance, maths.

You've mentioned the necessary suffering, that the forum sometimes teaches about. I don't think the suffering relating to animals during their death by humans - is to be framed into the same "box".

And yeah, I think we could say that even if the meat becomes fatter it wouldn't be a good idea! We would have to "find a better way".

 

[nature]

I can, if this could cure some human disease.

I don't see why it would be not acceptable for us to eat the animal that has suffered in some way before death. Other predatory animals do it all the time.

Yes, that is a common view on suffering. What I am suggesting is that perhaps we can view the suffering from another point of view which could be more beneficial for us. Suffering as a voluntary thing.

If this could cure human disease ?? It's better to die than to make a living being purposely suffer.
Moreover, humans can use their brain to get another means to cure disease. There are very few uncurable disease. Some say there are non. I won't develop this subject, it's too long, there are clues here and there in books, internet, or anciant knowledges. Sure it's not always the easy and quick fix, but at least it's not savage and low level way of acting. And if there is really no cure for a given case, it's a lesson, a teaching, a challenge, a thing to be accepted (even if it causes suffering to ourself), a cross to carry and move forward.
Ourself suffering doesn't justify to make another living being suffer.
You are a FOTCM member? If yes, you should read the FOTCM principles.

we can view the suffering from another point of view which could be more beneficial for us

A deeply selfish point of view, yes. It is your choice after all. Fortunatelly, lots of humans don't condone such things. Many prefer to die honourably than making the animal suffer (whatever the purpose).

You can either stress the plants or animals yourself or let the nature stress them herself, and you harvest/kill them at the right moment.

We are nobody. Do you put yourself on God's level?

 

[Persej]

I am not a God, I don't make rules of this world.

(L) Why have I been suffering so much? Have we asked this question before?

(Galatea) Probably. In many ways.

(L) Because it's like we pointed out talking about it yesterday or today or whenever it was... It's like since we started this crystal project, that's when I started going really, really downhill. I mean, I have suffered pain and miseries and infections and all kinds of dreadful things. It has basically just taken the stuffing out of me. So, I would like to know why?

A: We have mentioned often enough the last option you discussed: attack. But also there is the element of balance: In order to bring in great positive energies there must be corresponding suffering to act as inductor.

Q: (Pierre) That's what you said during the discussion, that maybe that's the price to pay.

(Joe) Why does suffering act as an inductor?

(Galatea) Well, for the balance because it needs the suffering to create the balance.

(Pierre) Laura was saying that you have a lot of people who talk about the benefits of the crystals, so they have less suffering. Seemingly, for balance to be restored, one is suffering (in this case Laura) in order for members to suffer less through the crystal network.

(L) Well, there's also another thing I remember. There's something from Mouravieff about negative emotions. If you can master negative emotions, then it inducts - he used the word "inducts" - it inducts positive energy from the higher centers. I'm not sure if I'm really correct on that. Pull up your copy at some point and find the quote. It would be interesting to see what he said. The word "inductor" is what catches my ear. Anyway... Well, they once said, "From the fire comes light", right? {Also, there is the element of “contact potential difference”}

Cassiopaean Session Transcripts Search

cassiopaeatranscripts.org

How do we make snake antivenom?

Snake antivenom is a medication made up of antibodies used to treat snake bites by venomous snakes. It is a type of antivenom.

It is a biological product that typically consists of venom neutralizing antibodies derived from a host animal, such as a horse or sheep. The host animal is hyperimmunized to one or more snake venoms, a process which creates an immunological response that produces large numbers of neutralizing antibodies against various components (toxins) of the venom. The antibodies are then collected from the host animal, and further processed into snake antivenom for the treatment of envenomation.

Production

Antivenoms are typically produced using a donor animal, such as a horse or sheep. The donor animal is hyperimmunized with non-lethal doses of one or more venoms to produce a neutralizing antibody response. Then, at certain intervals, the blood from the donor animal is collected and neutralizing antibodies are purified from the blood to produce an antivenom.

Snake antivenom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is making antivenom against the principles of FOTCM? Should people just die if they are bitten by snake because making the antivenom involves animal suffering?

 

[gottathink]

I can, if this could cure some human disease.



I don't see why it would be not acceptable for us to eat the animal that has suffered in some way before death. Other predatory animals do it all the time.



Yes, but this could be one such solution.



Yes, that is a common view on suffering. What I am suggesting is that perhaps we can view the suffering from another point of view which could be more beneficial for us. Suffering as a voluntary thing.



Makes no difference in the end. You can either stress the plants or animals yourself or let the nature stress them herself, and you harvest/kill them at the right moment.



Yes, this is still just a theory. But I think that it has some validity.

It all sounds very pragmatic and grounded in materialism. Much like the logic of the Temple Set. The Satanist’s who believe in him, himself.

 

[Nienna]

Thinking more about it, making an animal suffer so that we can benefit from it reminds me of those who torture children to make the adrenochrome more beneficial for them.

 

[Persej]

Well, I also thought about this more, and I think that this would actually be good even for the animals. Because the goal would be to produce these substances which, among other things, reduce the pain. Well, if we trigger the production of those substances before the animals get killed, then at the time of animal's death she would not feel much pain.

And I think that we can also see this in nature. I remember seeing documentary where lion was eating some animal. I was wondering how come the animal doesn't produce any sounds while she was being eaten. And the narrator said that she doesn't feel any pain because her body releases some kind of opioids. Well, adrenaline could be one of those substances. It is known that humans can sustain many injuries as long they have a surge of adrenaline in their bodies. But once they "cool off", the pain hits them. Something similar could be happening in animals.

 

[T.C.]

Well, I also thought about this more, and I think that this would actually be good even for the animals. Because the goal would be to produce these substances which, among other things, reduce the pain. Well, if we trigger the production of those substances before the animals get killed, then at the time of animal's death she would not feel much pain.

That’s like Trump saying he’s ended another war, the one in Iran. Except, he started it in the first place. Torture causes pain. Death itself ends it.

I understand the argument you’re making. Psychopaths in power make the same argument about the Palestinians: “We’re better and more important than them, and it would be to our benefit to wipe them out so we can have nice beach-front properties, and sell them to make lots of money for ourselves.”

I’ve always thought an easy way to define evil is intentionally causing pain and suffering.

 

[palestine]

@Persej

You just reach a wrong conclusion overall, and it looks like to be a sort of expanding "it's okay to make others suffer" to a wrong place. I suppose an association mechanism is the culprit there, and that you need to review it.

Perhaps it's about the acceptable range for "it's okay to make others suffer". Your range seems to wide and it seems that it's something quite restricted. 100% STo perhaps, something not up to decide, something that "is" how it is, not up to variations.

I must tell you... Please don't be provocative... I see you perfectly wondering on that topic, with full acceptance of learning and changing your mind. Result of people reading you, is "thou satanist"! Perhaps, show them a little bit more that you are ready to refine your way of thinking on those matters.

So - seems to me you want fatter meat I am with you on that one!

 

[Nienna]

Is making antivenom against the principles of FOTCM? Should people just die if they are bitten by snake because making the antivenom involves animal suffering?

This is a strawman argument and I think it is not on the same level as really making an animal suffer before killing it.

Since we live on an STS world, we are here to learn and to eventually make a decision of which path we want to follow: STO or STS. So which path do you think that purposefully causing an animal to suffer before death to maybe give some benefit to the one who eats it will put you on?